Generosity of the Exclusive Faith

  One of the paradoxes of history is the relationship between the beliefs and the practices of the early Christians as compared to those of the culture around them.
  The Greco-Roman world's religious views were open and seemingly tolerant - everyone had his or her own God. The practices of the culture were quite brutal, however. The Greco-Roman would was highly stratified economically, with a huge distance between the rich and poor. By contrast, Christians insisted that there was only one true God, the dying Savior Jesus Christ. Their lives and practices were, however, remarkably welcoming to those that the culture marginalized. The early Christians mixed with people from different races and classes in ways that seemed scandalous to those around them. The Greco-Roman world tended to despise the poor, but Christians gave generously not only to their own poor but to those of other faiths. In broader society, women had very low status, being subjected to high levels of female infanticide, forced marriages, and lack of economic equality. Christianity afforded women much greater security and equality than had previously existed in the ancient classical world. During the terrible urban plagues of the first two centuries, Christians cared for all the sick and dying in the city, often at the cost of their lives.
  Why would such an exclusive belief system lead to behaviour that was so open to others? It was because Christians had within their belief system the strongest possible resource for practicing sacrificial service, generosity, and peace-making. At the very heart of their view of reality was a man who died for his enemies, praying for their forgiveness. Reflection on this could only lead to a radically different way of dealing with those who were different from them.
  -- p. 20, The Reason for God by Timothy Keller

A thought on Christian Suffering

“Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.”
  -- Job's wife (Job 2:9)

It isn't just Christians who experience suffering in this world. Most definitely not. But what makes the Christian suffering different from the sufferings of others, of other religions or atheists?

Taking a superficial look at the Christians in suffering, you may suggest that Christians suffer "better" than the non-Christians. That is to say, Christians will (or should) do the good and decent thing even when personal tragedies strike them. We are told and expected, as Christians, to do the right thing even when bad things happen to us. Of course, we as Christians strive for that, and we do have countless amazing examples. But, just doing the right thing, doing the moral, courageous, and loving thing isn't necessarily what makes the suffering distinctly Christian. After all, many non-Christian parents live sacrificially and lovingly towards their disabled child. Many non-Christians remain married and be faithful to their quite unlovable spouse. Many non-Christians, stricken with terrible injuries or diseases, live a strong life, not filled with bitterness, and become quite an inspiration for many others.

No, simply "suffering well", however heroic it may be, cannot make it Christian. The most basic and essential ingredient of "Christian suffering" has to do with Who, rather than What or How. When we go through suffering, who exactly do we suffer it with? Is it just by yourself, or mere human beings you share it with? Or are you going through your suffering with God? We don't have to look so strong and be stoic about our suffering. We don't have to have all the right words to say and know the best thing to do when we suffer. We don't have to somehow leave a large biography inspiring millions after we overcome suffering. Most important factor is that we remain relient to our Heavenly Father who knows what He is doing.

Are you in pain or turmoil at the moment? Do you feel like you won't make it through today? This hour? Have you had enough of being nice about everything? Remain in God. Tell Him all your frustrations and fears. Voice your anger and despair to Him. And stay with Him. God will repay for all your suffering one day. He will vindicate you on that Great Day.

Practical Impact of the Doctrine of the Authority of the Scriptures

The Need to be Obedient to ScriptureIf God has revealed himself and his purposes to us in Jesus Christ as he is known to us through all the Scriptures, then clearly we are under a total obligation to submit our lives to the teaching of the Bible. It is a particular temptation of student life to imagine that truth is for the mind alone; but for Scripture 'knowing the truth' implies living it out in particular situations. In the OT, truth is primarily a moral quality implying the characteristic of dependability or faithfulness in action (e.g. Ps. 51:6). This understanding is expressed also in John's concern for doing the truth (Jn. 3:21, 1 Jn. 1:6). So this final section is integral to the exposition of the Christian doctrine of authority, for Christian truth in the deepest sense exists only where there is a mind which is set both to understand it and to obey it. If our passion for truth does not imply a passion for obedience to truth, then we are not really serious about it.
  In the end the doctrine of the authority is eminently practical. It confronts us with a specific challenge: to obey all that the Bible teaches, all of the time. Nothing could be more searching or down to earth than that.
  - p. 66, Know the Truth by Bruce Milne (italics original)

Reading the Bible with our hearts

Scripture can be interpreted only by the Holy SpiritTrue understanding is not natural to us; it is God's gift (Mt11:25, 16:17) through the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13f.). This neither absolves us from hard work, nor implies that we can isolate ourselves from other Christians in our understanding of the Bible.
[...]
This [third] hermeneutical principle carries a profound spiritual challenge. God's Spirit is holy; therefore what we understand of his truth is related less to the capacity of our brains than to the extent of our obedience. How far one can see depends on how high one has climbed rather than on how elaborately one is equipped. 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.' (Mt. 5:8)
  -- pp. 61-62, Know the Truth by Bruce Milne (italics original)

We need to engage our mind as we read the bible, but  the understanding will be given to those who obey God, those with the pure heart.

Trusting and submitting to the Word of God

We need to remember that this doctrine of biblical authority is one of the teachings of the Christian faith. As such it calls for faith, i.e. a believing commitment on our part, an attitude continuos with that of our Lord himself and his apostles, and with the historic view of the churches. This helps us to keep the doctrine of Scripture in perspective. We do not wait for a moment-by-moment account of our Lord's thoughts, words and actions before we trust ourselves to his sinlessness and hence his fitness to act as our Saviour, nor for signed statements of impartial eye-witnesses before believing and rejoicing in his resurrections; so we need not demand the resolution of every possible question before trusting ourselves to the infallible truth of Scripture and submitting to its authority.
  -- p. 59, Know the Truth by Bruce Milne

The most Scriptural church government

This is a direct copy from Ray Ortlund's blog post:

“It seems to me that the most Scriptural system of church government is that which requires the most prayer, the most faith, and the most piety to keep it going.  The church of God was never meant to be an automaton.  If it were, the wheels would all act of themselves.  The church was meant to be a living thing, a living person, and as the person cannot be supported if life is absent, or if food is kept back, or if breath is suspended, so should it be with the church.”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, preaching on 1 Timothy 3:15, 19 May 1861.  Italics original.

Here Spurgeon is speaking of it in a context of his whole sermon and he's no doubt trying to pack a punch in what he's saying, so take it with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, this is a good reminder whenever we think about church structure.

Fire in my heart

If I say, “I will not mention him,
or speak any more in his name,”
there is in my heart as it were a burning fire
shut up in my bones,
and I am weary with holding it in,
and I cannot.
(Jeremiah 20:9 ESV)

I wish, I hope, like Jeremiah, I would be given such a deep and unstoppable passion for preaching of His Word. Perhaps, then, I won't be so timid.

Church Government: Epilogue

I said last time that it was the final post on the Church Government series. Well, let me just say I wasn't quite done, even after that long post. I wanted to give a little lighter note at the end, and at the same time, make sure that I have not missed the main thing.

After drawing on my conclusion, I couldn't help but wonder if the church polity has become a little bit of luxury in the western society. I don't mean that it's unimportant, but, with the advance in technology and transport in particular, we are much more free to choose a church than our ancestors or our brothers in less developed countries are able to (or perhaps they didn't even imagine it!). Although many Christians left (or were ejected from) an established church to found a different church at the height of the Reformation period and during the Religious Freedom movements, and many with good intentions and reasons, the choice most of us in the west are faced with is quite different to what they were faced with. I mean, if I lived in a place and time where the transport was difficult and there was only one Christian church nearby, I will not hesitate to join that church, so long as it were Protestant, Reformed, and Evangelical. (Ok, I'm still unable to let go of some boundaries here, but see, they aren't church polity!) Or, let me put it this way. The church's structure won't be stopping me from joining it, may that be Anglican, Presbyterian, single-elder congregational, multi-elder congregational, or whatever else form, the church polity isn't going to affect my decision.

All this is to say this final, yes, the real final point. As I consider the church polity, it is important to remember that the gospel is the main thing. I won't say that the church polity is not important or inconsequential, no, it is important, but it is crucial that the church polity is viewed in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ.


To read the earlier posts in this series, see below:

1. Introduction and Anglicanism
2. Presbyterianism
3. Breakthrough
4. Single-elder Congregationalism
5. Plural-elder Congregationalism
6. Reality-check
7. Conclusion

Church Government: Conclusion

Note: This is the seventh and final post of the series on church governments, which began as I sought to understand the distinctives and issues of various church government systems. You can read the first six as listed below.

1. Introduction and Anglicanism
2. Presbyterianism
3. Breakthrough
4. Single-elder Congregationalism
5. Plural-elder Congregationalism
6. Reality-check

So, I've finished the book. I found the book to be helpful not because it was an exhaustive study on the church government, but because it highlighted various differing points, and they in the end sharpened my own approach to the issue of the church government.

As I was getting closer to finishing the book, however, I had to resist the temptation to give up on thinking further and coming to a conclusion of my own. I thought, "hey, these great Christian theologians can't agree, and so, how can I hope to get the right answer? Perhaps I shouldn't treat the church government as an important issue. Maybe whatever works is ok for a church? After all, my heroes in the faith come from various denominations, not just one!" Thankfully, I managed to resist that temptation.

So, have I come to a conclusion? I believe I have, but it doesn't mean that I am final on this. Like everything in our lives, I leave a door open for the bible to further correct my view. With the conclusion I came down to, at least for now, I can happily say that my conscience is clear. I hope no one reads what I below and simply take it as their own, but at the same time, I will be glad if they are helped in thinking this issue through, as I had been through the book.

Before I start on the main points, let me briefly list the three contentious issues which seemed to divide the four views.

1) Bishops "above" church elders (pro bishop? Anglicans. anti bishops? the other three)

2) Independence of a local church (totally independent? Congregationalists. not completely independent? Presbyterians or Anglicans)

3) Number of elders in a local church (single elder is norm? Single-elder congregationalists, and possibly Anglicans, plural elder is norm? Presbyterians, Plural-elder congregationalists, and possibly Anglicans)

As I closed the book, I was once again reminded that the most important question we need to ask was this: "What does the bible say?" That's the most crucial question.

One thing that struck me was the congregationalists' criticism on Anglican's low view of scripture. I don't believe Peter Toon has a low view of scripture, but he was criticised as by others. I think that is a misunderstanding on congregationalists part. The congregationalists were emphasising what is called the regulative principle. Simply put, it means that Christians must only worship God as the bible prescribes and no other way. This contrasts with the normative principle which says, we can worship God in many different ways as long as we do not commit what the bible forbids. I quite like the regulative principle and would choose that over the normative principle if I had to pick one. It seems the safer option for me. But I believe we need to be careful with it. You see, the question again, is "what does the bible say?" What does the bible say about the church government? This is before you decide on whatever principle you like and coming to the bible to find out what the bible says. If you like, you could ask, no you must ask, "what does the bible say about the regulative principle?", except you might be already putting to the bible a question that it's not interested in answering. I believe that the bible affirms the regulative principle some areas of Christian worship, but it is not a be-all-end-all kind of thing. The bible is the final authority, and if you are going to apply the regulative principle on the church government, you'll have to first find that the bible tells us to use the regulative principle on how to structure the church.

I cannot make this point strong enough in fact. Many Christians confess that the bible is the final authority in regards to the faith and that it is sufficient for believers to live God's way. Yet, we bring so many different ideas to the bible, and knowingly and unknowingly distort what the bible plainly teaches. Sure, we cannot understand the bible in a vacuum. We all bring certain presuppositions to the task of understanding the bible. What I am trying to guard myself against and warn others about is that these presuppositions should not be so strong that your bible actually depends on it. If you do that, you're inadvertently making your presuppositions the final authority, not the bible. So, what am I proposing here? Bring your presuppositions, your regulative principle even, if you like, but bring them soft, malleable, so that the bible will speak the final word. Your presuppositions, your principles, your rules and tools will be strengthened by the bible when they are in line with what the bible says, they will be weakened and even broken when they are opposed to what the bible says.

The biggest mistake with the congregationalists, I think, is that they already believe that they must only organise their church in the exact way the bible teaches. I am now convinced that the bible does not give a full, detailed picture of how to structure the church. So, if the congregationalists were to be truly consistent with their application of the regulative principle, they won't be able to structure the church at all. But they do! What they have done is that they went to the bible to find what they were looking for. When the bible does not give a detailed instructions on how to structure the church, to claim that the bible does is nothing less than adding to the bible.

I don't know enough to make a clear case for this, but my suspicion is that the profound disagreement between Anglicans and the rest (Presbyterians and Congregationalists alike, but particularly Congregationalists) actually stems from the historical relationship between the church and the state. Because the Anglican churches, through their bishops mainly, had a strong ties with the state, the dissenters had to work for the independence of the church from the state. That was a marvellous work. I am grateful for their work and sacrifices. However, now that the separation of the church and state and the religious freedom has been achieved (although some atheists will not rest until the government becomes anti-religion), I believe you do not need to reject bishops any longer. So long as they aren't domineering over local churches, and are faithful to the historic gospel of Jesus and working to further the gospel growth, they can be of good use for the churches. So, yes, I am not against the bishops. What if I was part of Presbyterian church or a Baptist? Will I demand a bishop? I don't think so. It is helpful to have bishops, but not so necessary to start instituting them when your denomination doesn't have them. There are other ways to fulfil similar roles I'm sure, even if not exactly the same.

So that's the first point of conclusion I've come to. Bishops are good, but don't fight to institute one if you don't have them. If you have them, make sure they are keeping with the gospel work.

The second point is whether to have a clear, structurally formal independence of local churches as congregationalists demand. All four views held that the local churches need to be in partnership with other churches. I think that's clear from the bible. The congregationalists, however, maintain that they need to be clearly, structurally independent of any other governing body, so that while freely partnering with other churches, they are not under some kind of obligations to submit to some higher church hierarchy. I am not convinced that this is necessary or better than the alternatives (Anglican or Presbyterian way). It seems to appeal to the independent, individualistic mindset of modern western culture, but I don't think the bible is so strong on the "complete-ness" of a local church that you should not bind yourself with some other churches. The local churches in Anglican and Presbyterian denominations run quite independently at the local level. The congregationalists argued in the book that in Anglican or Presbyterian structures, when one bishop or governing body makes a bad decision, the whole group of churches suffer. I understand that point with sadness in my heart (I think of liberal Anglicans and Uniting churches). However, the reversal isn't so much better as they seem to claim. In the absence of a bishop, or a trusted ruling body, I found independent churches (congregational, baptists, non-denominational, etc) to be a bit of hit-and-miss when it came to their teaching and practice. I found it more difficult to recommend an independent church to a friend because I can't have much confidence unless I've attended it or know someone personally there, while with the Presbyterian or Anglican churches, I could be reasonably confident that at least their theological convictions fall within certain boundaries I have. Not all baptists or congregationalists churches are not-recommendable, of course! But it's harder to confidently recommend one for friends when I don't know much about them. They are, after all, independent.

So, this is my second point of conclusion. The local church does not necessarily need to be independent and having a higher church governing body over local churches is a good thing. Here, a kind of footnote might be necessary. Does this mean that the Roman Catholic way of church structure is a good thing, where the bishop of Rome is supreme over all the churches globally? No. The bishop, to be engaged in a gospel ministry at a local level, they should have a limited geographical boundary. Without that, a bishop will be abstracted away from the local needs, and will eventually be less useful to the church and be at risk of working to simply increase his influence over more churches and greater area. 

Thirdly, I considered the number of elders in a local church. Before I read this book, I had been convinced that the most important issue in a local church government was the presence of multiple elders. If a church didn't have, or affirm as the norm, the multiple elders, I thought it was clearly going against the scriptures. This was what made me uncomfortable to go into ministry in the Anglican church, as opposed to the Presbyterian church. However, I seem to have been too concerned with the exact terminology, rather than the actual role they were meant to fill. I still think it is important to have multiple elders in a church, but I now think that the exact term elder is not necessary. It's not the terminology that's most important here, but the role they fulfil. As long as there are people leading the church alongside the pastor and they fit the biblical descriptions of their character (eg. 1 Tim 3:2-7 and Titus 1:5-9), I can work with that. They don't need to have them right now even, but so long as there is a possibility for that to change, I'll be content. I also think it is important that the pastor should work with "elders" in a way that is not domineering or independent, but with a posture of submission, as is the norm (ideal?) in the Presbyterianism. But this has more to do with the maturity of the church and the character of the pastor and less to do with the formal structure.

So, that's my third and final point in conclusion. A local church should strive to have a group of mature Christians working alongside the minister, and the minister himself, more than anyone else, should empower and recognise their authority in the church, so that the leadership of the church will not fall to a single man.


Speaking on what the bible says can be a difficult thing sometimes and may require courage and discipline. But keeping mouth shut on the things that the bible is silent on also requires as much courage and discipline. The great reformation motto, Sola Scriptura itself isn't a rule that you just bring to the bible. That itself requires verification by the bible (and thankfully the bible does teach that!). And the bible does not give minute details on how we ought to structure the church. In this light, I came to the above three points. Because the bible did not prescribe an exact and detailed church structure, I don't think it is necessarily a sin to commit to one of the four ways of church government (interestingly, all four proponents seem to agree on this, even the congregationalists who invest heavily on the regulative principle!). This means that, in our societies where the separation of the church and the state and the religious freedom is achieved, we do not need to split over the structure of the church, as they did few centuries ago. I don't think anyone needs to change their denomination purely because of its standard church polity. So I am content, having moved a year ago from a Presbyterian church to an evangelical Anglican church, I see no need for me to move back to the Presbyterian church. Of course, it would have been fine to stay as a Presbyterian too! If I were a Baptist, I wouldn't (or shouldn't) have moved to a different denomination either if the only issue I had were the church structure. I would most uncomfortable working in the single-elder congregational church, but being a congregational church, if I were to be a pastor, I can, in theory, teach on the matter and persuade the congregation to institute multiple elders. This is exactly what had happened under the leadership of John Piper at his church and there are many other examples.
It seems that while the regulative principle sounds restricting, and the normative principle mischievous, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, when applied correctly is most liberating for Christians.

These short, precious, eternity-charged years

[Jeremiah] feared getting what he wanted and missing what God wanted. It is still the only thing worthy of our fear.
What a waste it would be to take these short, precious, eternity-charged years that we are given and squander them in cocktail chatter when we can be, like Jeremiah, vehemently human and passionate with God.
  - p. 263, from Life At Its Best by Eugene Peterson (also in the 7th chapter of the book, Run with the Horses: The Quest for Life At Its Best)

Photo credit: Stuck in Customs / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA